Now for a conversation about staged fighting

Any Leafs-Senators game is going to obviously come with a fair amount of intensity, given the animosity between two cities that, on any given day, feel they're the most important in the country. But very early on in Wednesday's meeting, the matchup became representative of something else – the question about the value of staged fights in the league. Early in the game, Toronto's Frazer McLaren and Ottawa's David Dziurzynski decided they'd have a punch-up near centre ice. It was over pretty quickly, with McLaren laying a knock-out blow to Dziurzynski's jaw fairly quickly. Dziurzynski dropped to the ice face-down and, after coming-to, was helped gingerly from the ice, his legs wobbling below him like a newborn deer.

So. Here we are again, right where we always find ourselves, if somewhat slightly more specific than normal. This isn't just about fighting in general, you see. Though, while not every fight this year has ended like this one did, they are on the rise – so far, almost 40% of regular season games have featured a fight, whereas last year, it was more like 35%. That percentage will likely rise during the playoffs, as it did last year. This conversation is about staged fights – the ones that don't erupt out of the intensity of the game, but that are planned in advance for either tactical or retaliatory reasons. Should they still be allowed? Some will say, well, you can't have it both ways. If you're against staged fights, then you have to be against fighting, whole-cloth. If you condone fighting in any way, then you must logically have to support staged fights. Further, that side of the argument goes, staged fights serve a purpose: either they allow guys to let off a bit of steam, fight back for an earlier unfair hit on a star player, or simply get their teammates energized against a tough opponent. All of which make a certain kind of sense, and there's evidence to support fighting each case. Besides, as Don Cherry might say (and did on Saturday night), the players like staged fighting – or at least, enough for their union to put a stop to a push by the league in 2009 to impose stiffer penalties for it.

And yet, the Ontario Hockey League has managed to legislate against staged fighting since back in 2010, and hockey seems to be alive and well at that level. Further, as much as fighting is part of the NHL's entertainment value (ie. something that grabs those much-needed TV eyeballs), there's also evidence to suggest that fans aren't really enjoying it. A recent Angus Reid online poll showed 78% of Canadians want fighting out of the game at the peewee level, and two-thirds of Canadians think fighting should be banned at a professional level. Only 27% are against banning fighting in professional hockey and only another 7% think having the the ability to fight is important for the game. "In other words," Globe and Mail writer Roy McGregor writes, "hockey's cartoon can go."

How does that happen? Honestly, it really beats me (though it might come about in a weird way, as we'll discuss in a moment). If the players really don't want it to change, then it won't come from within the sport. Will people give up watching hockey because of the fighting? Maybe a few, but it's hard to believe all of those who said they wanted it gone from the NHL would be willing to stop watching for that reason. As always, we're at an impasse.

The visor conundrum (and what it might mean for the fighting question)

Dovetailing into the fighting debate is the question about visors, which also popped up again – somewhat coincidentally – this week, too, thanks to Rangers' defenceman Mark Staal taking a redirected puck directly to the eye. Here's the video of that, if you missed it (Note: it's a video of a dude getting hit in the face with a hockey puck. Govern yourselves accordingly).

Again, this prompts a question of league regulation. At what point does the nanny state step in and force players to take precautions against possible injury? Sometimes? Ever? Starting now? Again, the NHLPA is a factor. From the Toronto Sun:

"The players support visor use being a matter of individual choice," NHLPA special assistant Mathieu Schneider said in a statement Wednesday. "We continue to regularly educate the players on the benefits of wearing a visor so that each player can make an informed decision."

The Sun also notes that almost three-quarters of players in the league already wear visors – up from 69% in 2011-12. But one of the reasons some players choose not to wear one is because it makes fighting easier – and if their role on the team is to enforce as much as it is to score, that could be a majorly detrimental career move. So, perhaps it's best left up to the individual player to make the choice. However, as Brad May – no stranger to a fight or two – sort of disputed that, too, back in 2009. He told the Detroit Free Press that it "should never be the players' decision, because if you give us a choice and the chances are we make the wrong one." And even though he never wore a visor, May said, "for myself, if they tell me to wear a visor because I have to, then I have no problem with it."

Perhaps the discussion about mandatory visors has no serious connection to the one we keep having about fighting. But if the anecdotal evidence holds true – that those who like to fight like to do so without a visor – couldn't we by introducing mandatory visors (which is somewhat of a less serious regulation than a fighting ban), technically begin to solve two problems at once?

Trade rumours

Let's speculate (with some help). The trade deadline is already looming, so teams are already looking at adding and subtracting for a better chance of making the playoffs.

At the Edmonton Journal, Jim Matheson has a shortlist, including Corey Perry, who now plays in the shadow of the Ducks' recent decision to re-sign Ryan Getzlaf for $66 million over eight years. Perry, Matheson says, could go to the Ducks and ask for a similar deal. Maybe. He's part of Anaheim's core group, after all, and the Ducks are sitting pretty right now at second overall in the West. Still, Perry's only managed nine goals in 24 games (not bad) with 15 assists to go with them. Is that worth $8 million a year? Maybe. Getzlaf's notched 10 goals and 21 assists. Still, the Ducks probably aren't concerned about what Perry's done this year as much as they might be looking to what they could get instead for the years ahead.

Over at the New York Post, Larry Brooks speculates that Chicago's Marian Hossa might also depart soon, thanks to the new cap limitations in the new CBA. Hossa has a front-loaded contract that's not currently permitted by the CBA (as does Duncan Keith). Brooks writes:

Chicago is going to face a painful decision over the summer regarding Hossa, the 34-year-old winger whose contract runs through the 2020-21 season. The cap-recapture formula would inflict penalties of a minimum of $4.6M per season and a maximum of $9.2M per if he were to retire before the expiration of his contract at age 42.

And, as we discussed last week here, Flames captain Jarome Iginla could be moved, and Eric Frances at the Sun figures the latest string of poor performances from Calgary might make that decision easier. Iginla, he writes, "is surely able to better relate to the situation that saw Rick Nash finally admit he'd had enough of losing." But, as it stands, Iggy hasn't signaled to his agent which direction he wants to take things. Meanwhile, there's also some speculation that Flames d-man Jay Boumeester might also be on the way out. Oh well.

Realignment one step closer to being reality

The NHLPA doesn't reject every idea from the league, apparently. It's on board with the proposed realignment – at least until after the 2014-15 season. The decision will be finalized (probably) and the NHL board of governor's meeting later this week. What might sway the post-2015 decision to continue with the format or not could be the playoff arrangement, which has been clarified since the league first proposed the realignment. CBC explains that, here:

"The top three teams in each division earn postseason berths. The remaining four spots go to wild cards, the top two records in each conference. That means there's a possibility five teams make it from one division and only three from another."

So, like this year, get ready for a bunch of intra-divisional rivalries and perhaps an even more insane scramble at the end of the regular season, as teams fight for that last spot in the playoffs.